[Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk BusinessEdition

Terry H. Gilsenan thg at interoil.com
Mon Jun 13 15:16:55 MST 2005


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com 
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of 
> trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2005 3:51 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: 
> Asterisk BusinessEdition
> 
> On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:20 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
> > "trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com" <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting 
> > > freedoms).  Interesting concept.
> > 
> > I need to repeat here. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms 
> > that comes with free software. So, you have only the freedoms that 
> > comes with free software as defined by the FSF. You are not 
> allowed to 
> > do what you like. You are constrained to the freedoms that 
> follows the 
> > software and I think that is a very interesting concept.
> > 
> 
> Its not a freedom if its a limit.  That is my point.  The GPL 
> doesnt give freedoms it takes them away by putting limits on 
> other peoples code, not the original authors.  Now if the 
> author is ok with infringing on the rights of others then the 
> GPL is a good choice, however if the original author is 
> truely fore freedom in the code process, not the double speak 
> freedom that FSF talks about (where freedom means taking away 
> abilities) then they should not follow like sheep and repeat 
> what the FSF says (which on its face is an outright lie since 
> its not freedom that it grants).
> 

Ahem,

The GPL is about the freedown of the code, not the freedom of the individual


> 
> > > copyright and license to use are different.
> > 
> > I never claimed otherwise. 
> 
> If you were the person that was quoting the FSF as fact then you did.
> Too bad it got cut out, but you can always go back to the 
> original post that was claiming freedom means putting limits 
> on people other than yourself.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > You can technically put software out there with no copyright but 
> > > under the gpl license
> > 
> > Then there would be no one to enforce the license, which 
> would be bad.
> > 
> 
> Why do you cut out what I said when I addressed that point?  
> I am begining to think that you are doing it intentionally now.
> 
> 
> > > it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications).  
> > 
> > Yes, but we also want all modifications to be free
> > 
> 
> 'we' or you specifically?  We is quite a loaded word.  The 
> FSF makes a false claim that it *protects* freedoms, when all 
> it does is limit the freedoms of others to write code.  
> Specifically if I take a program and modify it, the original 
> is still under whatever license I got it in, but
> *my* code, the modifications are MINE not the original 
> authors.  The original author has NO right to claim that it 
> is their work, nor do they have copyright on *my* code.  But 
> by releasing it under a GPL they can force me to use a 
> license that I may not agree with.  This is the reason that I 
> dont contribute to GPL products, I dont like the idea of 
> someone else dictating to me how I will distribute *my* code.  
> 
> The default GPL makes it a lciense violation to run GPL code 
> on a commercial (or even BSD) system.  Extra stuff has to be 
> put into the GPL license to say 'its ok if you link this 
> against non GPL libraries and such'.  That is not the 
> default, so technically unless someone did that putting a 
> stock GPL license has other limitations on its mere use.  At 
> least historically libc on aix, hpux, sunos (4/5), irix were 
> all not GPL libc (I dont know with solaris now they added a 
> bunch of gpl stuff at one point).  If any of the GPL licensed 
> software did not take an overt action to say its ok to run it 
> on those operating systems then its a license violation.  
> 
> That level of selective enforcement also calls into question 
> the legal standing of the license (if certain sections are 
> not enforced the whole agreement can be voided on first court 
> challenge).
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControl
ledInterface
> for linking proprietary code to libraries - overt actions 
> required to make it work right
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLCommercially
> for reading up on how the license affects others who write code later
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone
> for reading on how you cant really link against libc on a 
> commercial operating system (or anything with a license that 
> is not compatible with the GPL, which BSD isnt becuase it 
> allows someone to take it, write *their own* code in addition 
> to it and not give *their own* code out.
> Thus by default you cant run GPL software on a BSD licensed 
> system, nor any commercial system *unless* the developer took 
> an overt action to say this is ok (default GPL it is not ok).
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSour
ceOnInternet
> for the lack of personal privacy that the GPL forces on those 
> that choose to release under it, specifically you *must* 
> (section 3) provide a mailing address.  If you value your 
> privacy and dont want everyone to have your address you must 
> pay extra to get a po box so that you, as the author of the 
> software, can comply with section 3 of the GPL - providing 
> copies by mailorder on physical media.  This is *required* 
> not optional.
> 
> The list goes on...
> 
> 
> > > the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they 
> can do with 
> > > their code
> > 
> > Yes, by using the GPL you restrict everyone to the four freedoms 
> > defined in the free software definition. This is exactly 
> what we want.
> > 
> 
> Again with the 'we'.  Personally I only speak for myself, but 
> I do notice that you again truncated what I was saying 
> especially the clarification of "their code" namely not the 
> copyright holder, but lets say I download some GPL software 
> and code some stuff for it.  I then give it to one friend, 
> technically I am distributing it, and thus have to give away 
> all *MY* code under the GPL.  So if you really do mean that 
> you want everyone to do it 'your' way or no way at all, then 
> yes I agree that is all the GPL does.  It protects nothing, 
> especially with the legally questionable practice of 
> 'selective enforcement' which has the power to nullify the 
> GPL in its entirety, but more importantly, it just creates a 
> lack of freedom for developers.
> 
> 
> > > The BSD license for example lets your code remain free 
> while giving 
> > > people the freedom to create code of their own, as a 
> modification of 
> > > yours, and use their code how they want.
> > 
> > This is exactly the reason I choose GPL, because it doesn't allow 
> > people to do whatever they want. They only have the freedoms that 
> > comes with free software, which is exactly what we want. 
> This ensures 
> > that the code stays free and any modification too it is also free. 
> > This is what we want and you obviously want something else.
> > 
> 
> That *MY* code?  Or were you too busy deleting my 
> explanations that its
> *MY* code that I am concerned with not yours.  If I write 
> code I should be able to choose how I release it, not you.  
> My code is mine, not yours.  My code was written by me, not 
> you.  My code is copyrighted by myself, not you.  My code 
> should come with the freedom to release it how I want, after 
> all it is my property, or is it?
> 
> I want the freedom of *choice*.  The ability to *choose* how 
> *I* release
> *my* code.  Nothing more.  You seem to think that if people 
> have choice then the world will end, and that choice is 
> exactly what the GPL fights against.  You keep saying that is 
> what 'we' want, so it must be true, whomever 'we' happens to be.  
> 
> I said this before, but you deleted it and acted like I never 
> said it so here goes again..  Your code would remain as free 
> as you choose to make it.  My code, which potentially is not 
> yet written, should be my choice to decide how free I want to 
> make it.  The GPL does not protect the freedom of your code, 
> all it does is restrict the freedom of *my* code.
> If you choose to give the code away free, even without a 
> license, just a copyright, it would remain as free as you 
> want it.  It would be as protected under the copyright law as 
> it is under the GPL.  GPL does not add anything to the 
> protection of your code in that regard.  However by choosing 
> to believe in freedom and choice and not going with a license 
> that has the stated goal of limiting freedom and choice (ie 
> the GPL) of a class of people they aparently do not like and 
> do not care for (ie
> developers) you restrict the freedom and choice of *my* code, 
> which is under my copyright and my ownership.
> 
> 
> > When we, the saints of the church of emacs, speaks about 
> free software 
> > we are referring to the freedoms that comes with free software 
> > (nothing more, nothing less). Free software has a definite 
> definition 
> > for us, which is that of the fsf.
> > 
> 
> Yes free from all but choice of developers.  Damn those 
> devlopers lets do away with them then the world will be 
> better!!  All that will remain are the brainwashed people who 
> think that freedom means restricting choice.
> 
> 
> > > If people want your version they can always get that from 
> you, and 
> > > so it is intact as 'free'.
> > 
> > Yes, but we also want the modifications to the software to 
> be free. We 
> > basically want what's defined in the GPL.
> > 
> 
> Ahh so now it *finally* comes out.  You want my code to be 
> licensed under what you feel is appropriate.  You want my 
> code as if it were your own.  You want control over me as a 
> devleoper by taking away my choices as a developer.  
> 
> 
> > > It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses.  
> > 
> > You can modify it as much as you want as long as the modifications 
> > also are free, just as the original code.
> > 
> 
> Yes those modifications are *MY* property, my code, my work, 
> and under my copyright.  By removing my choices as to how I 
> choose to deal with my code, the work I personally put into 
> something, that is your idea of freedom?  Where is the 
> freedom to me personally to license my code the way I want to?
> 
> > > Your version which you released 'free' would still be 
> there.  In its 
> > > unmodified glory.
> > 
> > By using the GPL, we also ensure that any modification to 
> it, be free. 
> > This is desired.
> > 
> 
> Yes you keep saying that it is desired that choice be 
> removed.  That freedom to select a license of the authors 
> choosing is specifically not desired.  That freedom and 
> choice are not what the FSF is all about (according to 
> stallman its about soliciting money becuase he was going 
> broke when people stopped buying his tapes of emacs for $150, 
> its all about the money (to him personally).  Why gpl 3.0 is 
> talking about
> *charging* people to use GPLed code (lets see who the check 
> gets written to, I put my money on the FSF collecting - after 
> all they want people and infact encourage that people sign 
> over the copyright to the FSF which means that in many 
> instances they would be the *only* ones that could be paid..  
> Interesting set of events...
> 
> 
> > > The GPL does not ensure freedom to all
> > 
> > It ensures the freedoms that are defined in the free software 
> > definition.
> > 
> 
> Yes freedoms to everyone but future developers.  I see, damn 
> those developers we could make the world a better place without them!
> 
> Btw why dont you get a new response?  All out of quotes from gnu.org?
> 
> 
> > > it works like a parasite and infects future code
> > 
> > Yes, this parasitic effect is exactly what we want. 
> > 
> 
> This is getting boring, it was fun to show how foolish the 
> gpl is, how costly it can be to poorer devleopers, and how 
> silly it can be with its selective enforcement but you arent 
> even trying to get new quotes from the FSF.
> 
> Although I do find it intersting that you admit that the 
> whole point of the FSF is to infect the software development 
> world like a parasite ensuring that people get sick of it and 
> decide they no longer want to use it.  
> 
> 
> > > All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into 
> > > the same doctrine.
> > 
> > Yes, which is exactly what we want. If you choose to use 
> GPL code, you 
> > have to follow the rules.
> > 
> 
> Actually that is debatable, and in about 3-6 months I will 
> have some time on my hands and plan on challenging the GPL 
> under selective enforcement and getting it tossed out in 
> court.  That should end this silly thread.  All I have to do 
> is find every GPL license that doesnt specifically allow use 
> on commercial operating systems or other non GPL licensed 
> free systems ...  shouldnt be too hard since most people are 
> so brainwashed by the FSF/GPL they dont even read it to see 
> what they have to do.  That might even be fun.
> 
> 
> > > I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little 
> to protect 
> > > the original author
> > 
> > The copyright protects the original author by law. 
> > 
> 
> Right, that was my whole point, why did you cut out the part 
> where I said that?  I am now convinced you are doing that 
> intentionally.  Too many times have you omited what I said 
> just to get your comment in.
> 
> I guess that is 'desired' as you have been stating that the 
> GPL does not protect hte original author.  As such It does 
> not protect freedom of code at all, since the original author 
> controls that.  All it does is restrict freedoms. 
> 
> 
> > > it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to 
> > > license in the same way.
> > 
> > Yes, and that's what I love about free software. The software stays 
> > free.
> > 
> 
> Are you really this dense or are you so brainwashed that you 
> cant grasp the fact that if it werent for other licenses you 
> most likely wouldnt have what you have right now.
> 
> 
> > > it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it 
> curtails 
> > > that freedom.
> > 
> > Once again, it only guarantee freedoms that follow free software. 
> > 
> 
> Yes, doesnt protect the author of the software, infringes 
> freedomes from all who get the software.  You have said that. 
>  Many times infact.
> 
> 
> > > And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL.
> > 
> > Yes, but we use the gpl to protect the freedoms that 
> follows free software. 
> > 
> 
> That isnt what you were saying before.  You said that it 
> doesnt protect the original author, nor does it guarantee 
> that the code is infact kept free, why the GPL 3.0 is talking 
> about charging people who modify the code in house and dont 
> distro it.  So even if you do not distro the code it appears 
> that isnt good enough.  Maybe its just that I am not a 
> communist hippie type who believes that the information wants 
> to be free (information cant want anything).
> 
> Why is it that free software needs all this extra protection? 
>  I dont think its inferior to other code, so I dont think it 
> needs extra protection.  Why is it that you feel so strongly 
> that free software is inferior?
> 
> 
> 
> > > The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use.  
> They are very 
> > > different things.  You can copyright something and distro 
> it without 
> > > GPLing it.
> > 
> > Indeed. 
> > 
> 
> Why did you say that it was a copyright?  You cut that part 
> out (again,
> sigh) but you did say it was the same thing.  You really 
> should learn to read before you click send.  
> 
> 
> > > it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent 
> authors that 
> > > enhance the code.
> > 
> > Which again, it's the desired effect. 
> > 
> 
> Ahh you admit that the point of the GPL is to curtail freedom 
> not grant it.  I see..  it doesnt protect the author, it 
> doesnt grant freedoms, it inhibits them.  That is the desired 
> effect, you have said that many times now.
> 
> 
> > > subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they 
> license it, they 
> > > are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails 
> > > freedom.
> > 
> > Yes, glad you understand cause this is the purpose. The 
> freedoms that 
> > follow free software will continue to follow it and neither you nor 
> > anyone else can change that.
> > 
> 
> Ahh yes here it is again, you are further confirming under no 
> uncertain terms that it protects nothing, but infringes on 
> freedoms of others.  I see.  
> 
> But I plan on changing it due to certain terms that are yet 
> unchallenged with the GPL.  Infact I plan on flaunting it so 
> that someone sues me and we can put this to end once and for 
> all.  Should be in 3-6 months when I have a little more time. 
>  Hopefully someone does sue me (I bet no one does because 
> they know they will lose and the GPL will be void).
> 
> 
> > > The modifications are the *only* difference between what 
> you release 
> > > and what they release, so if they use your code as a base 
> and make 
> > > changes to suit a particular need, their code, which they 
> did write 
> > > all of, cannot be licensed how they choose
> > 
> > This is exactly what we want. 
> > 
> > > the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their modifications,
> > > *their* code, must also be GPLed
> > 
> > You're just explaining what we want. 
> > 
> 
> Yes I kept saying that the GPL protects nothing and infringes 
> on freedoms.  Glad that is what you are finally admitting 
> too.  Maybe the webpage should be updated to clearly state 
> this is the goal instead of lying to people about what the goal is.
> 
> 
> > > The GPL doesnt protect freedom, it curtails freedom of future 
> > > developers.
> > 
> > The GPL protects the freedoms that comes with free software. 
> > 
> 
> But you just said it doesnt.  Now either you are lying or 
> just maknig stuff up to take an opposite approach to me.  It 
> does not protect anything, it does however infringe upon 
> freedoms of developers (and largely only developers).
> 
> 
> > More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the 
> users of 
> > the software:
> > 
> >     * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
> >     * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt 
> it to your 
> >     needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> only for the weak.  Learn good development and you wont need it.
> 
> >     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help 
> your neighbor.
> Ahh if only it were a freedom instead of a requirement.
> 
> >     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your 
> improvements 
> >     to the public, so that the whole community benefits. 
> Access to the 
> >     source code is also a precondition for this. 
> > 
> That isnt a freedom, that is the infringement of a freedom.  
> I should not be forced to give up my property, namely my code 
> becuase you said so.
> 
> > > Commercial development? 
> > 
> > There is nothing wrong with selling free software
> > 
> I am sorrt you cut out everything I said (again) and quoted 
> me out of context (again).  I am thinking this is on purpose 
> for anything you didnt have a webpage cut and paste for.
> 
> 
> > Commercial software is software being developed by a business which 
> > aims to make money from a use of the software. Commercial and 
> > proprietary software are not the same thing. Most 
> commercial software 
> > is proprietary, but there is commercial free software and there is 
> > non-commercial non-free software
> > 
> 
> Right and if the author chooses to license it under the BSD 
> license or hell even the apache license, or hmm lets see any 
> commercial license.
> Gee infact the FSF states any non GPL license then without 
> overt actions by the author you violate the license by 
> installing that 'free'
> software.
> 
> So you should add the freedom to run any operating system 
> that is GPLed, so long as you run no other.  That isnt always 
> a choice, but that is what is desired, yes you have said that 
> many times.
> 
> 
> 
> > > and thus reduction in IP rights for any company that uses it.
> > > Again, while this goes against the FSF's mantra it *does*
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please 
> elaborate.
> > 
> 
> You cut out so much of what I was saying, and at this point I 
> really dont feel like pulling my old email, you certainly 
> didnt pull your old one when you cut out my responses to you 
> (intact and in context, unlike how you treated me, but then I 
> have always felt that I should treat people better than how 
> they treat me).  
> 
> 
> > > curtail rights of future developers in forcing them to use a 
> > > speciifc license for *their* code (ie modifications).  
> The original 
> > > authors code would be as free as they choose to make it.
> > 
> > You're just repeating yourself and I'm doing the same in 
> saying this 
> > is what we want.
> > 
> > You may disagree, but I certainly see things this way. 
> > 
> 
> Gald you are so brainwashed that you cant see the forest for 
> the trees.
> Had you actually come up with reasonable things I would not 
> think of you that way, however all you can do is quote the 
> FSF in response to my comments, which you conviently quoted 
> out of context and not even complete quotes.  My guess is 
> that the whole statement was too hard for you to respond to 
> so you have to edit my comments so that you could respond 
> with the pat answers rather than have a real opinion of your own.
> 
> 
> I sometimes choose to run a non GPL operating system. that 
> should be my choice, my freedom to choose.  However what is 
> desired (as you have said many times) the FSF does not see it 
> that way.  The FSF sees that you should run only a GPL 
> license or get special permission to use GPL code on it.  
> That is not acceptable to many people, infact I would be 
> suprised if many people even know of that restriction (link 
> provided above).  I sometimes choose to run some non GPL 
> software that interacts with GPL software, and the FSF takes 
> a dim view of that as well.  Note they dont say 'free 
> software' when putting that restriction in they say nonGPL.  
> Its not about free software, its about forcing everyone into 
> the same mold, one that does not always fit.
> 
> I must thank you, had it not been for this email I would not 
> have been inspired to go after the selective enforcement 
> issue of the GPL and do everything I can to try to get sued 
> (of course not sueing is just as
> bad) for violating the GPL by *gasp* installing it on BSD 
> (specific apps, I will pick the ones I feel are best for this 
> purpose) and then have the GPL tossed out in court.
> 
> Selective enforcement is a bad thing, legally speaking.  If 
> you dont protect your assets the court sees to it that you 
> have none to protect.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
> UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
> US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
> FreeWorldDialup: 635378
> 




More information about the asterisk-users mailing list